Monday, March 15, 2010

Ian Lowe emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University in Brisbane, is president of the far left Australian Conservation Foundation an extremist environmental lobby group. Ian Wishart on The Briefing Room exposes the latest ramblings of this confused old white guy during a crisis meeting with social scientists and others in New Zealand exploring ways to manipulate the public to get catastrophic man made climate fears back at the top of people’s worry list. I strongly recommend reading the original article which includes audio of Lowe and an old white female social scientist.

According to Lowe old white anglo males over 60 are the problem. These dangerous old guys need to be stopped! They are out of control. Only yesterday I saw gang of old white guys roaming the suburb smashing letterboxes and throwing half empty beer cans at passing motorists before jumping into a fossil fuel burning vehicle and doing a burn out all the way up the street. Irresponsible bastards. I spoke later to a group of middle aged brown women who agreed that old white guys were the problem. They then started screaming and wailing when I told them that it was announced yesterday by WEDO that women would be devastated by climate change.

Lowe wants the money spent on the Hadron Collider for his own purposes rubbishing the physicists in the process by claiming the collider is nothing more than a nuclear billiards machine. He is also the only scientist I have heard claim that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Of course there is no evidence to support this and that is why no one claims it to be so however Lowe doesn’t let nil evidence ruin a good story. See the links in this post to the actual evidence.

One of Australia's most outspoken scientists has this week rubbished the team behind the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, describing the project as nothing more than a "nuclear billiards machine" and saying the money should be devoted to paying for more climate change research instead....

During the hour long media briefing, Lowe

•ridiculed the scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider, saying money would be better spent by climate scientists •argued that for propaganda purposes the media should hype-up individual weather events - such as floods in Mozambique - as proof of climate change •claimed Hurricane Katrina was clearly caused by climate change •claimed a conspiracy of white, Anglo Celtic elderly males was behind the skeptic movement •with NZ government social scientist Karen Cronin advocated researching how to foment enough anger in the public that governments who refused to take climate action could be "pushed out of the way" in a political upheaval

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Now the UN and WEDO (Women’s Environment and Development Organisation) claim global warming is devastatingly gender sensitive. WEDO even claims global warming causes sexually transmitted diseases and its effects are gender differentiated against women. Women are being hit hardest by global warming and in greater danger of death by global warming.

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 9 (IPS/TerraViva) – The negative fallout from climate change is having a devastatingly lopsided impact on women compared to men, from higher death rates during natural disasters to heavier household and care burdens.

...

These “famine marriages” – as they are called – not only lead to girls dropping out of school, but also make them vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections...

But WEDO claims success is being achieved with more blah blah blah.

According to WEDO, not only did gender texts increase (peaking at 40 plus) in negotiating documents, but so did women’s participation.

A stunning result no doubt. That’s one giant leap forward for gender textedness. Millions of impoverished women will be celebrating that result as they struggle to find enough cow pads to burn to make a little bread or boiled rice each day. Give yourself a big pat on your well fed backs and carry on.

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
*******************
SPPI Note: This familiar sounding news report was published in November 1922 when the Arctic likely warmed as much or more that recently. Many reports referred to the warming as “climate improvement.” This early 20th century warming occurred long before humans could have much reputed influence on temperatures, which may be why some government paid scientists world-wide are busy “adjusting” historical temperature data suppressing these early high temperatures while exaggerating upwards recent ones.
see full 1922 Arctic report

Monday, March 8, 2010

Let’s do a little role playing for a moment. Imagine you are a genius climate scientist at the top of your game who knows deep down inside your very soul that the world is in for disaster. By 2100 seas will rise by over 5 metres (Hansen), temperatures will rise 1.1-6.4C (IPCC) humans will become extinct this century (too many to mention but how about we start with Prof Peter Barrett), natural disasters are caused by the unnatural actions of humans (IPCC), Himalayan glaciers will vanish by 2035 (IPCC) and of course polar bears are goners. Unfortunately the forces of evil (the public) do not believe you and one anti-doomsdayist went so far as to leak emails from the Climate Research Unit (referred to as Climategate) showing how you and your fellow scientists colluded to misrepresent information, hide the decline, act against the law of FOI and subvert peer review processes amongst other not altogether upstanding actions. You have a problem – how to deal with the alarming growth of non-believers. So the issue is how do you organise round 2 to get the public back on your side? Well to a genius the answer is obvious! Organise politically via the very medium that brought you undone in the first place - more emails! DoH!

Rebel scientists are organising a political campaign via email after being caught out by their own climategate emails less than four months ago. Damn – sprung again! This is too funny. Those pesky little world dominating activists scientists sure are cute. Maybe instead of adopting a polar bear at the zoo we should all adopt a climate scientist. They sure could use the help. I have first dibs on Hansen though OK. He is my favourite science critter. Just so there is no doubt I include on this page a graphic of Hansen that I lifted from Australian Climate Madness. Apparently Hansen was out here in OZ last week but I must have missed it. Pity really. I would love to have seen my science critter on home turf peddling immanent world destruction.

Here is a link to a pdf file of the Climategate V2 emails for your reading pleasure. Get the popcorn and a nice strong coffee and enjoy. Some of the world’s leading doomsdayists are authors of the emails. Heck even Paul Ehrlich (remember him), a doomsdayist's doomsdayist most well known for not ever getting a prediction right in his entire career is there pontificating on the climate misfits next offensive. Naturally the proposed action doesn’t involve any actual science but rather an expensive full page add in the New York Times newspaper. Brilliant stuff. That’s the kind of thinking that could just win you a Nobel Peace Prize. Just add some Power Point slides and you’re a dead certainty for the now thoroughly debased Peace Prize.

The emails do not really show anything that is not already known. They merely confirm that scientists have become political activists with science a long placed second.

While you’re reading climategate2 load up the video below for a summary by a US Senator of the Senate Minority Report dealing with Climategate 1.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Senator Penny Wong, Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Water, has been claiming that the drought in the Murray Darling (something that has occurred throughout history) is due to global warming. It seems that Australia’s top scientist disagrees.

AUSTRALIA'S top climate scientist has contradicted Federal Government claims the drought in the Murray Darling Basin is due to global warming.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, Prof Neville Nicholls, said the claim was not backed by science.

"The current dry period (in the Murray Darling Basin) might still be just a fluke, or natural variability," Prof Nicholls said.

"We cannot confidently attribute it to global warming."

Yet Federal Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong has repeatedly claimed the basin's drought is due to climate change.

Penny should have consulted one of those “boring men with no sense of humour that run around in white coats measuring things" (PM Kevin Rudd describing a scientist just in case the use of the word scientist would confuse us) before promulgating more unfounded nonsense. I suppose though that when your credibility is based on disastrous catastrophe caused by man made carbon dioxide one would tend to stretch the truth a little when it steadfastly refuses to play along. How inconvenient (TM).

Monday, March 1, 2010

I saw a small bit of a thing on BBC News this morning. OK, this is from memory and I didn’t watch the whole thing because I would have been sedated to prevent me from hurling the cat at the Samsung. And neither Timmy nor the telly deserve that…

I would though chuck an irate ocelot at Harriet Harman’s minge. That is another story though…

It was about “The Rise of Climate Scepticism in Australia”. It described climate sceptics (they’d burn ‘em if that weren’t “polluting”) meetings as being like an “American religious revivalist meetings” (that’s so BBC on so many levels, that’s the sort of thing to get the average Indy reader priapic) and it was just generally horrendous. Despite my inchoate rage I did though clock something which outraged me beyond feline-throwing comprehension.

It opened with a shot of the cracked, dry Australian Desert. You know that thing that Australia has a lot of but also had a lot of when Captain Cook made landfall and even had a lot of during the Dreamtime of the Aboriginals with this soundtrack:

Yup, whilst the BBC now calls us “sceptics” and no longer “deniers” it plays music from a symphony written specifically about the Holocaust.

Where do you think that band is performing? Don’t look much like the Royal Albert Hall to me unless that gaff has really gone downhill very recently.

So the likes of me, PA and Cats wanna disagree with the “consensus” on a scientific issue and we’re ushered to the “naughty-corner” along with that cunt Nick Griffin. Well, some of us, Aunty Beeb actually not only can parse the science but will not fall for cheap tricks like that. Some of us know what an adiabatic lapse rate is and some of us have also been to Auschwitz. Some of us even listen to C20th orchestral music.

Friday, February 26, 2010

In today’s Telegraph (UK) I was somewhat stunned to read about a report modeling three global warming scenarios. Since I actually started paying attention to the global warming fiasco only a few short months ago I have read a lot of unbelievable nonsense masquerading as science, absurd predictions by scientists of the extinction of the human race within less than 90 years and much other utter rubbish. The Telegraph article presents a report that is right up there on the madness scale and this “research” was directed by none other than the UK’s top scientist, John Beddington.

“Mass migration northwards to new towns in Scotland, Wales and northeast England may be needed to cope with climate change and water shortages in the South East, according to an apocalyptic vision set out by the Government Office for Science.
...
The Government would ease pressure on the South East by planning to “disperse citizens to three new towns in Dumfries and Galloway, Northumberland and Powys”.

Three hundred Mad Scientists and lackeys in the UK have produced a report entitled Land Use Futures: Making the Most of Land in the 21st Century. John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, directed the “research” (a term no doubt used loosely here). He apparently says that climate change and the growing population would present Britain with difficult choices about how it used its (or rather YOUR) land.

So now we have the “scientists” (note Beddington is a Professor of Population Biology and his tenure as Alarmist In Chief in Britain has been dominated by “green” issues) widening the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) myth to include issues such as scientists deciding how to use your free hold property and when to take it from you. Make no mistake, this is the end of all traditional western rights and the economy as we you know it. Without a guarantee of freehold property rights the economy stops dead and the failed communist or facist system (there is little difference) where a small class of people determine who gets what is instituted always ending with starvation, poverty and ultimately the collapse of the nation. Even China doesn’t practice that the more pure form of this type of government anymore. So long UK, it was nice to have you aboard while it lasted.

The report entertains three scenarios to “stimulate thought”. If it doesn’t stimulate mass rage and the sacking of the leaches that produced such rubbish “it would be a travesty” that it didn’t.

In order to save you the government will, according to these scientists and their lackeys need to move millions of you Brits hundreds of miles north. I wonder how that is going to be achieved? Will you all voluntarily get in your (banned) motor vehicles and drive north with a tent and your plasma TV in the boot or will you be called onto the street by masked black clad troopers, told to bring only what you can carry, and force marched north at the point of an automatic weapon. I don’t know about you but a polite invitation just wouldn’t do it for me. Storm troopers with machine guns probably would, and certainly would if I was part of a disarmed population of sheep such as the once proud warrior race of Britons have become. Oh the shame of being a bleating lamb slaughtered rather than a British lion standing his or her ground in a fire fight.

Beddington says, “Business as usual is not an option over the longer term. The effects of climate change and new pressures on land could escalate, seriously eroding quality of life.” Apparently for the green equals red mob in order to save your quality of life you have to forfeit your property, liberty and life.

In the most extreme scenario, world leaders hold an emergency summit in less than 4 years time in 2014 when it becomes clear that the impacts of climate change are going to be far worse and happen much sooner than previously envisaged. Note of course that the world’s leading climate alarmist, at least until he was stood aside from his post at the Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones, publically stated only a few days ago that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years. Beddington’s mob however, at taxpayers expense, role play a little scenario taking place in less than 4 years hence where climate change is “far worse” than now. This is laughable science fantasy. All pretence of scientific objectivity has been abandoned by promulgating such nonsense. The solution in their little pantomime? Well it involves confiscation of “vast tracts of land” and the end of the small hold private farmer:

The Telegraph article states,

The Government responds by taking control of vast tracts of land and using it to grow wood and crops for biomass power stations. An agricultural productivity Bill requires farmers to increase yields per hectare but most have to sell up because they lack the resources to comply. “The average farm size in the UK increases from 57 hectares to 500 hectares; farms in the East and South East of England increase to 5,000 hectares.”

In a less alarmist scenario merely removing the rights of private land and house ownership is fantasised:

In another scenario, the Government redefines land as a national resource and the rights of landowners are balanced with “society’s rights to public benefits from the services produced by it”. Home ownership falls as people begin to embrace the idea of “stewardship” of shared natural resources.

So the Government just redefines your property, paid for by a life time of work and sacrifice as a “national resource”. In other words the government thugs kick you into the gutter and take what was once yours, at gun point of course as no one would give up their house voluntarily. However not to worry! There is a solution! You will be embracing “stewardship” (or at least the government will on your behalf) and you can “share” resources. How cool would that be. No longer would you need to work. Want a house? Simple. Just find one you like and “share” it with the incumbent resident. I wonder how living at 10 Downing Street would suit. Need a car? Just take it. I wonder if this sharing would extend to your neighbour’s wife. Now there’s a thought. It’s all so simple I am amazed no one has tried this before. I would be so busy “sharing” resources I doubt I would have time to produce anything by actually working. I am sure the rest of you would keep slaving away however so I can enjoy the fruits of your labour. Or would the government have to force the people to work, once again at gun point? Obviously no one would want to work when any property you acquire is taken from you to be “shared”. The only answer would be forced labour. That would work a treat judging by past world experience.

The fact that anyone of any standing, let alone the UK’s chief scientist, would put his or her name to such a document is telling. Yes it is only three absurd scenarios. But that is the point. The scenarios and suggested outcomes and solutions are absurd and they show no shame in presenting this nonsense to you in a report. If it is a question of millions of people “sharing” the fruits of their labour then you may as well give up now as it will all end in tears; and the death of millions. Of course short of a world wide green marxist takeover this is never going to happen but that doesn’t stop the UK’s chief scientist having his dirty little dreams late at night hoping that it will come to pass so he can step in and mandate the Final Solution for you.

Genius and excellence appears to be finally extinct amongst self labelled "scientists" and instead has been replaced by profligate peddlers of nonsenese fantasy clutching their worthless phd's in soft "science" of marginal or negative utility to civilization.

Stay strong people of the UK. Get these fruitcakes and soft headed saps off the public payroll and the problem is solved. Oh and have a great 2014 – unlike Beddington, I am sure it WILL be business as usual.

THE government’s chief scientist (John Beddington) and his wife have made £500,000 in the past year in a company overseeing commercial fishing that allegedly threatens one of the world’s most pristine marine environments.

Professor John Beddington and his wife, Caroline, are joint shareholders in Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG), a London-based consultancy that manages fisheries and provides specialist advice around the world.

Conservationists claim that a fishery managed by the company in British territorial waters in the Indian Ocean has been catching threatened species including blue sharks and manta rays. It is estimated that between 2003 and 2008 more than 120,000 were caught as “bycatch” from commercial tuna fishing.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Ken over at kenskingdom has just posted an analysis of GISS data compared to BOM data for Gladstone in Queensland, Australia. Ken’s blog is new but the way it is going it looks like developing into a must read for those interested in the Australian data.

Although GISS can truthfully say they have not adjusted the GHCN data, the splicing of the last 6 years of the Post Office dataset to the warmer Gladstone Radar leads to a trend of 1.7 degrees Celsius per Century.

I have shown three possible options for more appropriate adjustments to combine all temperatures at the one site. Of these, the highest trend is about 1.5 degrees, which is close to the trend (1.4 degrees) of the nearest rural sites. Examination of these sites shows that their data is of questionable quality. The second option produces a trend of 0.9 degrees, and the third and (in my opinion) best option, 0.7 degrees. The average trend of the 5 nearest long-record rural sites (0.8 degrees) is between these last two options and so matches well. Nearby cities of Rockhampton and Bundaberg show adjusted trends of about 0.7 and 0.5 degrees respectively, and Maryborough, ignored by GHCN, shows a trend of 0.4 degrees.

Ken is a retired school headmaster and his blog is concentrating on graphical analysis of temperature data relating to Australian towns and cities.

Friday, February 19, 2010

It’s always doom, doom and more doom. For alarmists and their brethren, the statists, nothing short of the general population in a constant state of alarm is acceptable. An alarmed population is easily hoodwinked into voting for self imposed taxation, unemployment and massive reductions in living standards in order to be saved from the next imagined threat. From today’s Australian newspaper,

AUSTRALIA'S most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Bells and those on the Sunshine Coast, could erode away or recede by hundreds of metres over the coming century, according to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

But locals aren't so sure.

Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen "no change" to the coastline over that period. "Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future," said Mr Boman, 53.

Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong's comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.

Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century.

In her opening address to the National Climate Change Forum in Adelaide yesterday, Senator Wong made some alarming predictions for Australia's coast. "Not only are our assets and environments at risk, many of our sandy beaches could erode away or recede up to hundreds of metres over the coming century," she said. "It is possible that with climate change and without large and expensive nourishment programs, Bondi Beach, (Queensland's) Sunshine Coast and (Victoria's) Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today."

....

For Penny and her Labor mismanagers it always seems the answer is “large and expensive (nourishment) programs” with the emphasis on expensive. The only problem is they never work. How’s that "pink batt" roof insulation scheme of PM Rudd’s going Penny? Another large and expensive failure. I fail to see how setting alight the roofs of over 80 people’s houses through shoddily installed, paid for by government “pink batts” helps with global warming Penny. Then again perhaps I am just being too picky.

The only thing that needs nourishment is Penny Wong’s cluemeter. Get lost Penny, no one is listening anymore.

UPDATE: Not even the UN's top climate offical, Yvo de Boer is listening anymore. He has just announced his resignation. Read about it here on BBC News.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Oh no, here we go yet again. A panel has been set up by the University of East Anglia (UEA), called the Independent Climate Change Review, to investigate certain matters arising as a result of the leaked climategate emails involving Professor Phil Jones of the UEA. Already one of the panel, Dr Phillip Campbell has resigned due to allegations bringing into question his impartiality. Now the impartiality of another panel member, Professor Geoffrey Boulton has been called into question. Professor Boulton refutes the allegations and has refused to resign. For a synopsis of what’s going on over pop on over to Climate Audit.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by an expert team, led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE. The Review team has more than 100 years’ collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific backgrounds.

None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.

In addition, in direct violation of the Review’s own independence statement that none of the reviewers have any links to the IPCC, Boulton’s CV states that he was a contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change. This alone warrants his resignation from the Review panel. Perhaps Boulton has just "padded" his CV or perhaps his CV refers to some other intergovernmental panels - either way it does not look good for Boulton or the "independent" review.

Why does this theme of trickery, underhandedness, ethical shortcomings and outright untruthfulness seem to follow AGW peddlers like a bad smell. This Review panel so far gives me that bad feeling you get when you have just stepped in something nasty on the pavement. Is there nothing about AGW that is open, verifiable, testable, ethical and honest. I am getting totally fed up with the underhanded methods employed, the failure to fully and openly declare associations and funding, the breach of ethics and the breach of common decency that seems to pervade these people. They disgust me.

Surely it cannot be that hard to organise a review panel that is beyond repute, that is unless of course the outcome has already been decided. With one member already forced to resign and a second under a cloud perhaps the best course of action is to scrap this panel, replace Sir John Muir who does not seem to have much luck at organising impartial panels, and set up a new panel that will hold an open enquiry. That is the only way this investigation is going to have any credibility. A closed investigation stacked with AGW proponents into something as important as this is not just a total waste of time, it is a joke. I would like to see a panel with a range of skills including a reputable legal professional with a proven record of impartial moderation, an ethicist, a science historian as well as a couple of hard core scientists. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

If the science community keep this up they only way they are going to get public funding soon will be to run lemonade stands in their spare time.

Monday, February 15, 2010

We have seen recently that one of the errors made by the IPCC was that the Himalayian glaciers would melt by 2035. They based this on heresay and have now admitted their error. I stumbled across the then outgoing Greenpeace leader, Gerd Leipold, trying to spin a similar story about the artic ice melting by 2030. When pressed he eventually admits it is BS and that he was spinning the story as an activist. Gerd also clames in the video to be a climate scientist. These are the "scientists" we are to trust? Not bloody likely. I recommend this video if you want to see a lie exposed on camera. It is most entertaining.

Greenpeace had said in a July 15 2009 press release that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on “Hardtalk” pressed Leipold until he admitted the claim was wrong.

Following on from the Revelations of Phil Jones yesterday we now have the last chairman of the IPCC, Australian Prof Robert Jones, saying that if all the errors by the IPCC report were innocent they wouldn’t all be in favour of warming, according to the Australian newspaper. Have I just woken up in some kind of alternate universe? Quoting from the Australian:

“Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.

Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by current chairman Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.
The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2500 scientists who produced the report.”

The rub is that Watson wants to get together with Gore to form a new group to restore the credibility of climate science. I would humbly suggest that if restoring credibility is your goal then Al Gore is not your man. But what would I know.

“Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.”

After what Prof Phil Jones had to say to the BBC yesterday (see yesterday's post) why are we even considering throwing good money after bad? The game is up fella’s. Now can we get back to building space stations and such and forget about messing with graphs based on “adjusted” data. What a shameful waste of time and money. The only evidence Phil had for man made warming is that he doesn’t know what’s causing (which isn't suprising for such a complex dynamic system) it so it must be man. That is not evidence. That is a rort.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Prof Phil Jones of “Hide the Decline” fame, formerly of the CRU (Cimatic Research Unit) at the University of East Anglia was one of the world’s leading climate scientists until stood down after the release of the Climategate emails containing evidence of scientific misconduct, subversion of the peer review process and manipulation of evidence.

1. Jones states there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 (see response B in the BBC link above). This is an astounding admission. This is a key point raised in debate with alarmists that has up until now been answered with outright denial and derision. Now that this has finally been admitted by the key alarmist, Phil Jones, the lies promulgated up to this point by alarmist scientists who have denied this fact will not hold up.

2. Jones states that recent warming (1975 – 2009) is not unprecedented. Skeptics agree that the globe is warming slightly. The Earth is coming out of a period of cooling (the Little Ice Age). The debate is whether the warming is “man made” not whether there was warming during the 20th century. One key point therefore is whether warming has occurred in the past i.e. is current warming unprecedented. Jones now states that current warming is not unprecedented and is less than some warming events (see response A). He includes the following table in his respnse showing warming since 1975 is not unprecedented even in recent history.

3. Jones is asked how confident he is that humans are responsible for recent warming. He responds (response E): “I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.” With billions spent on AGW research he is unable to state a case for man made warming (anthropogenic warming) other than referencing back to the UN IPCC report which is now being attacked daily by the main stream media (which is reporting on earlier research conducted by skeptics) for shoddy referencing to non peer reviewed literature, errors and denial of errors. One could be forgiven for expecting a stronger response in support of man mad global warming under the circumstances. See 5 below for clarification by Jones.

4. Jones is now equivocal on whether the Medieval Warming Period was global in extent or limited to the northern hemisphere.

5. Jones is asked what factors convince him that recent warming is man made and answers by stating that it must be man made because otherwise he can’t explain it (see response H). After decades of research this is the evidence we are asked to believe? If it wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable.

6. Jones states that he does not believe the vast majority of climate scientists believe that the debate (on AGW) is over. This would be news to all skeptics and most other people on the planet who have heard of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Consistently we are told that the “debate is over”, the “science is settled” and that anyone who does not believe is a “flat earther” or a “denier”. Now that the world’s former top alarmist has cleared this up no doubt we can be spared such lies in the future from alarmist scientists and politicians with an agenda or a tax to push.

Concluding this first part of my series thus far, Climategate conspirator Phil Jones offers some very interesting insights into his true position on man made global warming and it can fairly be described as weak support for his hypothesis in stark contrast to the unequivocal statements from other so called climate scientists that we have previously touched upon on this blog.

The most surprising admission in the responses examined thus far is that recent global warming is not unprecedented and Jones illustrates other relatively recent periods where warming has equalled or exceeded the rate of 20 century warming. As man cannot have influenced earlier warming prior to the mid 20th century this destroys a central pillar of the man made global warming argument. It acknowledges, finally, that other influences in recent history have affected climate more than man has since the mid 20th century.

Next, Jones accepts that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 and in addition he notes that there has been a negative trend in global temperatures since 2002 of -0.12C per decade although he believes this not to be statistically significant. This seems reasonable given the short time period for the later although I note that alarmists have refused to concede even this much previously. The important point is that Jones is accepting that there has been no warming for over 15 years (since 1995). There goes another argument until now never conceded by alarmist scientists.

Another huge admission is that Jones believes the Medieval Warm Period is open to debate. Anything being open to debate by IPCC scientists is remarkable but this is truly astounding. It goes right to the heart of the entire alarmist camp. I will post separately on this matter as its significance cannot be overstated.

Jones brings nothing to the table to support the theory that man has caused warming since the mid 20th century other than to reference the IPCC. Neither one statement nor one fact does he allude to in support of man made global warming other than to state (response H ) that his support for man made global warming is based on the fact that he cannot explain it.

If that isn’t enough for you to immediately be banging on the front door of your local politician demanding answers as to why they are attempting to spend billions and in some cases trillions of your taxes on this scam then come back soon for my next instalment and we will look at further responses by Phil Jones as he deconstructs the entire man made global warming myth that dishonest scientists and politicians have been gleefully shoving down our collective throats.

Let the sackings begin, the SS Anthropogenic Global Warming, previously flooding now has foredecks awash. The rats are in a panic. It will be interesting to watch these crooks and liars now change tack and reconstruct. They will deny they said many things but fortunately with several millions of pairs of eyes now firmly fixing upon them there will be nowhere for them to run. Indeed I have seen statements by catastrophic alarmists recently who now state that we should not overstate the alarm. I’ll post on those highly placed liars as well.

Phil Jones of "hide the decline fame" and perhaps, until recently, the world's top alarmist scientist and key part of the "team" along with Penn States' Michael "Hocley Stick" Mann was recently quoted by the BBC as contemplating suicide.

Phil Jones forwards to Mike Mann an email advising the sudden death of Australian climate skeptic John Daly:

It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly. Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com). Reported with great sadness Timo Hameranta, LL.M.Moderator, Climatesceptics

Jones’s comments:

In an odd way this is cheering news! One other thing about the Climatic Change paper—just found another email—is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to provide all the data and computer programs!! According to legal advice, Intellectual Property Rights overrides this.

Yesterday another interview appears on the BBC website in the form of a question and answer series which can be found here. I will be following with a series of posts on Phile Jones' responses to the BBC questions.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Here is the complete UAH satellite temperature anomaly series for various regions of the globe ranging from Global to North Polar to South Polar that I have prepared. They are the current latest available spanning Dec 1978 through Jan 2010. Note that I have retained the same scale on all plots so a viewer can get a reasonable comparison of all regions although in order to retain detail of much of the data it results in plots of some regions being off scale.

The European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS) is failing to deliver vital green investment after a collapse in carbon prices, MPs warn in a report out today.

The environmental audit committee is calling on the government to introduce measures such as a new carbon tax to push the price of carbon from its level of €15 (£13) a tonne to what the MPs see as a more credible price of €100.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the committee, said: "Emissions trading should be helping us to combat climate change, but at the moment the price of carbon simply isn't high enough to make it work. The recession has left many big firms with more carbon allowances than they need and carbon prices have collapsed.

"If the government wants to kick-start serious green investment, it must step in to stop the price of carbon flatlining," the MP added.

Even Friends of the Earth argues the ETS should be dumped in favour of energy efficiency measures and regulation.

Friends of the Earth said the environmental audit committee report was "another nail in the coffin" of the ETS and argued the government should drop its reliance on the scheme in favour of energy efficiency measures and stronger regulation.

Sarah-Jayne Clifton, a climate ¬campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "Not only is trading failing to drive down emissions, banks are growing fat developing ever more complex trading systems and this risks another financial crash."

Hmmmm ... that sounds a lot like the approach proposed by the Liberal Leader, Tony Abbot. No doubt this is not good news for Kevin Rudd.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Simon over on Australian Climate Madness describes this BBC video as a must see. He is correct. It provides an excellent snapshot of the change in public opinion that has occurred in Australia with support for taxing the climate falling fast.

I see this amongst my own "associates". Twelve months ago non belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) resulted in barely concealed sneers. Such strong opinions on science from people who couldn't plot a simple regression line if their lives depended upon it I must admit surprised me at first. Now a skeptical position receives either open support in the majority of cases or at least a considered hearing. Interestingly the most vocal supporter of climate change that I personally know (who has gone strangely quiet in recent months) also strongly believes the moon landings were faked by NASA and yet has no difficulty in basing their own belief in CAGW on "the science" - none of which they have actually read.

I still find it amazing just how quickly public opinion is shifting. What was only a few months ago political suicide now stands a chance of bringing a government undone. This of course is not certain and anything can happen, but the question is now a political one and that is where the battle is being fought. Actually thinking about it the issue has always been political right back to the original formation of the now discredited political activist body, the UN IPCC.

Any that actually know me who are reading this will recall me saying over the last year or two that as soon as the Australian CAGW believers are asked to put the first $20 of their own money on the table to pay for global warming you will see them turn and run. In Australia you see there is this belief, and it is a strongly held one, that when governments talk of "taxing polluters" that somehow that doesn't mean us i.e. the average taxpayer or citizen. Of course all costs will be passed on to the consumer. We are the polluters. We demand and buy the goods produced. This is being played upon now by PM Kevin Rudd who talks about making “polluters pay”. Kevin defines CO2 as pollution. Naturally if a power station pays for producing CO2 it will raise its electricity prices. It is so simple and yet it seems to have come as a "great big suprise" to many Australians. Perhaps it is the same everywhere.

It seems however that Australians are quickly now realising that it is us who will have to pay for climate beliefs in cold hard cash and many former CAGW believers are turning tail and running fast in the opposite direction. There is a saying here, "money talks, bullshit walks" that is particularly apt in the current political situation.

Kevin Rudd says he will "compensate" low to middle income earners for the extra cost of his great big tax on climate. Two problems:

1. that is where much of the tax dollars come from so it will be a deficit breaking expense - of course he won't do this. The promise will be quickly be broken. In fact it seems from TV interviews it has been broken before it even starts.

2. why would you compensate people when the whole point is to change behaviour by placing a price signal on carbon for heaven’s sake. Compensating consumers distorts the very signal one is trying to produce!

I commend this video to Australian readers or to anyone who wants to get a feel for the political position here as it stands today.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

AUSTRALIA is looking increasingly isolated in the global community as Kevin Rudd presses on with his government's emissions trading scheme.

US President Barack Obama admitted just two days ago he might have to abandon his proposal for emissions trading in favour of direct action in order to steer his carbon-cutting plans through the US Senate.

None of the world's top five polluters -- the US, China, Russia, India and Japan -- has an ETS

In perhaps the worst performace of any minister I have witnessed, Penny Wong managed to avoid answering ANY questions on the ETS. She was being pushed by ABC Lateline interviewer Tony Jones for the cost to consumers of increased electricity prices under scenarios ranging from a 5% cap to a 60% cap on emmissions but unfortunately for we Australians it is information that Penny Wong will not tell us. She just wants us to take the tax hikes on faith - much like her climate "science".

Penny must think that details of her climate tax scheme are only to be available on a need to know basis. I will be one of the unfortunates paying for Penny's radical activism and I NEED TO KNOW. If the government doesn't trust us with their costings and modelling are we going to trust them to put their hand in our back pocket? Australian's are not that stupid Penny.

The only reason Penny would keep the details of costs from us is that it is going to cost AN ARM AND A LEG. Time to email, phone, write your sitting members and senators now and make sure Sneaky Penny and her delusional boss Kevin Rudd don't get their way on this one.

Could the pair of you PLEASE stop saying "Let me just say this/can I just say this" etc etc etc ad infinitum in interviews. It is nauseatting, pompous and entirely unnecessary.

"In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature."

Well isn’t that a surprise. NIWA “adjusts” the official temperature record of New Zealand which shows no measureable change in average temperature for the last 150 years and ends up with a graph of “adjusted” temperatures showing a sharp warming trend. In other words the entire warming trend in the NZ record was in the NIWA “adjustments” but they do not have any record of the adjustments (the dog ate my data). NIWA cannot justify the warming trend it built into its published data.

For a scientific organisation this is a "travesty".

“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

“NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’.

...

“Well qualified climate scientist members of our coalition believe that NIWA has forfeited confidence in the credibility of its temperature recording procedures, and that it cannot be trusted to try to cover up its own ineptitude by in-house adjustments. What is needed is open access in the public domain to all of the known reasons for post-reading adjustments to enable independent climate analysts to make their own comparative assessments of temperature variations throughout New Zealand since the middle of the 19th century,” said Mr Dunleavy.

New Zealand’s adjusted temperature data is now faith based. It is mere guesswork. I support Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition in calling for NIWA to dump its unverifiable adjusted temperate data.

Just what kind of credibility can NIWA expect to have when it does not bother to maintain detailed documentation of the critical adjustments to its own data? The answer is none.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Rajendra Pachauri was apparently too busy to check into glaciergate problems in December. We now know why. Instead of proofreading climate articles, Pachauri has been busy launching a softcore novel about the sexual adventures of a climate expert in his late 60s.

He must be following in our beloved Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd's footsteps. Kevin recently found time to write a children's book.

By page 16, climatologist Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. “She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.

“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”

More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

Now go take a cold shower.

No doubt there will be many budding climatologists enrolling in Obfuscation 101 to get in on the hot action before it is too late.

Suprise! It is G, have a chauffeur drive him in a traditional petrol consuming car the grand distance of 1 mile to the office.

It is always amusing to see how, without fail, those that tell we peasants to catch the bus or cycle to work always have a reason to use private cars and private jets to get around. The IPCC provides us with tips on how to cut our carbon footprint and one would think it’s Chairman would be leading the charge in his own backyard. There is always a good reason why those peddling the lie of immenant global catastrophy do not use the bus, walk or cycle.

He spends much of his time travelling and speaking on climate change at international fora and jokes he "lives at 30,000 feet".

Jokes?!! His emissions (I mean emissions due to him) are destroying the world -doesn't he take his own IPCC's reports seriously?

Even as he constantly roams the world putting tons and tons of planet-killing CO2 in the atmosphere, while joking about it, he wants you to "give up cars or all of the other good things in life that represent achievement for human civilization".

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

Let’s refresh our memories of a few lies that the Chairman of the IPCC Dr Pachauri has told which relates directly to the above embarrassing findings. This is from a meeting of the Commenwealth Club in June 2008,

PACHAURI: “The point is you have a transparent, comprehensive, extremely widespread process involving the best scientists and experts from all over the world telling you that climate change is for real.

“And this is not something that the authors working on IPCC reports have invented. This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions.

“We don’t pick up a newspaper article and based on that come up with our findings. This is on the basis of very rigorous research which has stood the test of scrutiny through peer reviews.

Well in fact your IPCC does pic up magazine articles and come up with findings Dr Pachauri. You are a liar.

For the missing in action global alarmist, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, this will be more devastating news that he has yet to address with the Australian people. Recall that in November 2009 Kevin Rudd met with Pachauri in India at Pachauri’s TERI headquarters and committed tens of millions of Australian taxpayer dollars in funding. Refer to this article in The Australian,

During his lightning 36-hour visit to India last month Kevin Rudd met with Dr Pachauri at the TERI headquarters in New Delhi where he announced $71 million in funding for joint Indian-Australian scientific research and fellowship programs.

While the aged in Australia wait for life saving operations and decent aged care, while taxpayers wait for hospital services and Australia’s massive debt remains unpaid, PM Kevin Rudd continues to emit Australian taxpayer dollars to deeply suspect overseas organisations for no benefit to Australians faster than the CO2 emissions are emitted from the exhaust of his jet while he trots around the gloabe embaressing the people of Australia with his sycophantic ways.

Where are you Kevin? You relied on the IPCC assessments for Australia’s climate policy and the expenditure of vast sums of money. What have YOU to say, as Prime Minister, on the continuing revelations re the IPCC? Millions of Australians await your answer with interest – however none of us are holding our breath.

Here’s a screen capture of Kevin meeting with his mate Pachauri in India taken from a video (left of shot) before handing over $71M dollars on behalf of Australian taxpayers.

Geomap

About

This blog is a about Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) which is global warming caused by the activities of man. The core issues are:

- Is the climate warming,- Is the warming outside of historic norms- Is it caused by anthropogenic CO2- Will it result in global disaster as the IPCC insists

Only the first has been satisfactorily answered in part and the qualification is that the data upon which the IPCC claims are based has not been made available for full scrutiny as yet. The average terrestrial land temperature experienced slight warming this century. In some regions such as Antarctica it has cooled. The earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age since 1650 (see Akasofu 2007 & 2009) which is one reason this warming trend is expected. It appears that this is not outside of historic norms (see Medieval Warm Period) and that the IPCC and some scientists have attempted to downplay the Medieval Warm Period and the effects of the Little Ice Age. The later two issues are not settled despite UN and government spin towards the contrary. For some excellent background from a real climatologist not implicated in the recent CRU revelations see the links to Dr Roy Spencer's blog below who discusses these issues as a professional.

Australia Joins China and Iran in Net Censorship - Nanny State Cometh

Pearls of Wisdom & Otherwise

Glenn Reynolds (USA - Instapundit.com): "I'll believe its a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

Nick himself (Counting Cats in Zanzibar blog): "Is it just me or has the spam-trade been entirely taken-over by performance poets on Arts-Council grants?"

Dr. Kiminori Itoh (Phd UN IPCC Scientist Award-winning environmental physical chemist): "When people know what the truth is the will feel deceived by science and scientists."

Dr. Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor of climatology, Lead author on many IPCC reports, in an interview with Discover Magazine 1989): "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Former US Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management- a London-based business that sells carbon credits, in an interview with Grist Magazine 9 May 2006 re his book An Inconvenient Truth) "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."

World Climate Widget

Items of Note

New readers may be interested to peruse two of my earlier posts concerning the Fear of Global Cooling which was popular in the late 1970's. I have posted a copy of a Newsweek article together with comments here and here.